Ekaterina Kudashkina: This week we will start by looking
into the 66th U.N. General Assembly, which took place in New York with tensions
running high over the core Palestinian issue. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas
is fully determined to seek UN recognition of the Palestinian state, and Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fully determined to stand against it. In
our first section, Beyond the Headlines, we will try to understand how relevant those fears are and
whether there is still room for diplomacy to intervene. In our second section, Between
the Lines, we will discuss different approaches to the issue as seen
by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Gareth Evans, a former foreign
minister of Australia who was actively involved in negotiating the Oslo
accords. In our final section, Face in the News, we will talk
about Nils Ushakov – the 35-year mayor of the Latvian capital, Riga, a leader
of the “pro-Russian” Harmony Center party, and a rising star in European
politics.

So, the Palestinians
cause another surprise at the UN, although, of course, it was not a surprise. We
discussed this on our program some time ago.

Sergei Strokan: I remember that
discussion, and we came to the understanding, that by crossing this Rubicon on
the issue of Palestinian state recognition, President Abbas pledged to make
a breakthrough in a matter of weeks, not decades.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: There
could be some logic in this position. Abbas was sending Israel a clear signal:
enough is enough.

As far as I understand, Mr. Abbas was saying
that the Palestinian bid in the United Nations doesn’t contradict the idea of continuing
with negotiations.

The procedure in the UN works like this: Mr.
Abbas submitted the bid for UN membership to the UN Secretary General; Mr.
Secretary General has to hand it over to the Security Council for
deliberations; The Head of the Security Council convinces the commission that
is going to look into the matter, and after some time it is going to decide
whether to recommend it to the General Assembly that they take the matter for
discussion and that they grant membership to the Palestinian authority. But the
crucial thing to me is that there are no time limits between those stages, that
allows for some maneuvering.

Sergei Strokan: But don’t forget
that regardless of the Security Council decision, there will be also
deliberations at the General Assembly. And more than 140 countries have already
voiced their support for Palestinian independence. However, Israel has warned
that a unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state will never work. And there
are mixed feelings in the United States. The Palestinians can be recognized by
140 or 190 countries, but if they don’t settle the dispute with their nearest
neighbor, Israel, what sort of state it will be.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: I
think that the major issue is to internationalize the issue. Their point is
that neither bilateral talks with Israel nor efforts from the Quartet have
brought any tangible results. Now we have Mouin Rabbani, visiting Senior Fellow
with Institute for Palestine Studies, with us from Washington.

So what does the Palestinian side expect of this
move?

Mouin Rabbani: I think that if
your question is about the leadership, I think their approach is to use this as
a tactical maneuver to seek to improve the terms of any negotiations on the
continued American sponsorship. But I think for many other Palestinians, the
value of this initiative is precisely that it could help lay the basis for
internationalization of the question of Palestine. What you have had now,
basically for 20 years, is the diplomacy that has had one and only one sponsor,
and namely the United States. What internationalization means is that taking
the Palestine question basically away from this American diplomatic hegemony
and returning it to the United Nations.

Sergei Strokan: I think we have to
agree that what they can expect is nothing more than a moral victory, moral
support, and still this victory is questionable, as it is not recognition
itself that matters, but what matters is solving core issues of the conflict,
like the refugee problem, or border problem, or the question of the status of
Jerusalem. And General Assembly is unable to solve those issues. Though
many say that Palestinians have to negotiate it with Israel. You cannot change
your neighbor, and the first thing you have to do is to come to terms with your
neighbor.

But also the echo of those deliberations in New York
came to Moscow. We also have here a strong pro-Israel lobby, and at the same
time we have very motivated groups of those who support Palestinian state. This
week activists from Russian Jewish organizations were protesting near the walls
of the Palestinian Embassy, saying unilateral recognition is a road to nowhere.
I think this is more that just an outcry. It shows that it will be extremely
difficult for a newly born Palestinian state to survive.

Initially it was expected that the Security
Council will look into the matter within weeks, and by the end of the year
there will be a Palestinian flag in the United Nations, but this is not the
case anymore. I think that U.S. President Barack Obama is deeply disappointed
that all his attempts to bring both sides to negotiating table have failed. I
understand his logic, because it seems that he has no option other than to use
his veto right in the Security Council. Some say that such move will give him
more votes at the next year presidential election as there are a lot of fans of
Israel in the United States.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: But
that makes the position of the United States even more vulnerable as a mediator
in the conflict, because a mediator should be absolutely impartial, it should
be non-partisan. And using his veto will also have serious side effects for
Obama both at home and abroad.

{***}

Sergei Strokan: In the United
States, he can expect to have more votes from the pro-Israel lobby. However, the
veto will seriously undercut the U.S. position in the Middle East, where there
is overwhelming support for the Palestinian independence.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: What
is the alternative to a veto?

Sergei Strokan: Well, some experts
say, that Obama should preempt the Palestinian bid for UN membership by
introducing his own resolution at the Security Council.

I believe the world community needs a resolution
on the Palestinian issue that will not divide the world, but garner wide
international support. I believe that there are few crucial points that should
be reflected in such document—the first point is that the future border between
Jewish and Palestinian states should be established on the basis of the borders
which existed before 1967 Six Day War.

The second point is that both sides should agree
on security arrangements in Gaza and the West Bank that will meet Israel's
demands.

The Palestinians
have to take strict measures that will allow Israel, especially these border
areas not to live under this sword of Damocles. Jerusalem also is a very
difficult question, because how can you divide undividable? Israelis say there
is no way to divide this “eternal city”, while Palestinians want East Jerusalem
to become a capital of independent Palestinian state. But as for Jerusalem,
there can be a solution: it can be a shared capital. And I think that they can
agree that there should be no attempts of uprooting Israelis or Palestinian
residents in the city as it will only rock the boat and agree that it will be a
shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: That
sounds quite fair to me, but once again, I think that at this stage this is not
a negotiable solution. Nobody is going to talk on these terms. It needs to
time, but we are running out of time, with the Arab Spring, with the rise of
nationalism in the region, all across the region, both in the Arab countries and
in Israel.

I think that your approach seems more creative
than the approach suggested by Ehud Olmert, whose piece we are going to discuss
in the second part of our program, Between the Lines. It’s a piece
entitled “Peace Now, or Never,” published in the “New York Times.” The basic
point he is making is that time for a peaceful solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian issue is running out. Let me summarize it in a couple of
quotes: “As tensions grow, I cannot but feel that we in the region are on the
verge of missing an opportunity — one that we cannot afford to miss. We
Israelis simply do not have the luxury of spending more time postponing a
solution. A further delay will only help extremists on both sides who seek to
sabotage any prospect of a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution. Moreover,
the Arab Spring has changed the Middle East, and unpredictable developments in
the region, such as the recent attack on Israel’s embassy in Cairo, could
easily explode into widespread chaos.”

I think that Mr. Olmert is reminding his readers
what solutions he proposed back in 2008. He says that during his tenure as
prime minister, the Israeli people expected him to present “bold political
initiatives” that would bring peace and not arguments outlining why achieving
peace now is not possible. Today, he says, such an initiative is more necessary
than ever to prove to the world that Israel is a peace-seeking country.

Sergei Strokan:So,
as far as I understand, and as far as I remember, Mr. Olmert has been
supporting the two-state solution – just like everyone now seems to
be.

Ekaterina Kudashkina:That’s
right – he says the issue could be resolved by establishing a Palestinian state
on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip, a
step backwards compared to what you have been suggesting.

Do you really think that suggesting sharing
Jerusalem in a manner proposed by Mr. Olmert could work? Its Jewish areas, he
is saying, would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would
become the Palestinian capital. I am not sure that it is exactly a position
that would be supported by the Palestinians.

Sergei Strokan:Well,
they never rejected it. This is something Mr. Olmert formally suggested in
September 2008, three years ago, and there has been no formal rejection to it.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: And
there is another proposition concerning Jerusalem: “Neither side
would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be
administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United
States. Do you think this kind of solution might really be accepted by the
Palestinians?”

Sergei Strokan:If
we take the Palestinian stance, then it is not that simple, you see.
Palestinians are also not united. Obviously there is the Hamas stance, and
there is the stance which is voiced by President Abbas. In addition to that, Palestinians
are influenced by Arab mediators.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: I
want your opinion on another piece by Mr. Olmert. He writes: “Because ensuring
Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the
Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military
alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism
and violence.” How could a demilitarized state fight terrorism? How do you
think the Palestinians would agree for demilitarization, and if they don’t
trust their neighbor, and this distrust continues for years and years?

Sergei Strokan: I
think a lot will depend on who will have the upper hand in the intrapalestinian
struggle. I am speaking about Hamas, about their regiments, about their
brigades. So how can you apply the term demilitarization to structures like
Hamas? This is nonsense.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: If
we look at the experience across the Middle East, there have been some cases
where previously extremist, militant organizations have become more or less
legitimate political players. Take Hezbollah, for example. They are reducing
their military wing, and they are entering real politics.

Sergei Strokan: We
have not touched upon the Hamas stance on the Palestinian issue. So far we were
saying that President Abbas was going ahead with his initative of recognition
of the Palestinian state within the borders of 1967, but this idea is rejected
by Hamas, because if implemented, this will lead just to peaceful coexistence
between the two states, Palestinian and Israeli, and Hamas denies the very
right of Israel to exist. That is why Hamas is not interested in this type of
recognition that Palestinian authorities are now seeking in the UN General
Assembly.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Even
if Hamas were not there, you would not be able to demilitarize Palestine, on
the mere grounds that terrorism is on the rise, across the whole region, and no
sane state would agree to demilitarization in those conditions.

{***}

Sergei Strokan: But
there is no other option. The second point of the alternative resolution if it
is submitted to the Security Council, should make provision for strict security
measures so that Israel should not become a subject of further attacks from the
Palestinian territory. You can’t achieve this goal without demilitarizing
Palestine.

Ekaterina Kudashkina:No,
I strongly disagree with you.I don’t think that it is ever viable for a state
with no military structures to oppose the terrorism threat, to get control over
extremists; military structures are essential.

But let
us get back to where we started – my point is that since Itzhak Rabin was
assassinated in 1995, the overall commitment to finding a solution has been
waning. I’ve run into another piece written by another seasoned diplomat with
extensive experience in the Middle East peace effort: Gareth Evans, Australia’s
Foreign Minister from 1988 to 1996, and a president emeritus of the
International Crisis Group. He came up with a story entitled “Israel and
America on the Wrong Side of History.”

Sergei Strokan:Does
that imply that he, too, is not optimistic about what’s going on in the UN now?

Ekaterina Kudashkina: To
an extent he is definitely not. But he is rather more critical of the Western
position. He says “What Rabin would certainly have understood – is that it is
overwhelmingly in Israel’s own interest to defuse this issue by accepting, once
and for all, that Palestinian statehood is an indispensable requirement of its
own long-term peace and security. Indeed, Israel should treat the UN vote as an
opportunity for a new start to negotiations, rather than an excuse for renewed
confrontation. Such a constructive outcome has become more urgent than ever,
given the Middle East’s new geopolitical realities following the Arab Spring.
Moreover, a perceived change of direction on the Israeli-Palestinian issue
would be hugely beneficial for the West in its relations with the Islamic
world.”

Sergei Strokan:
Recent polls show that about 70 percent of Israelis support the two-state
solution.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: I
guess we should look at it in the regional context. The general trend over the
years and over the region has been a rise in nationalism. And the Arab
revolutions are just more proof to that. Nationalism is a desire to see your
nation standing higher, but as soon as you get a desire to suppress other
nations surrounding you, that is what I call national chauvinism. That is what
standing in the way of every peaceful development including the situation
between Israel and Palestine.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: As
we have been witnessing not only in the Middle East, but everywhere, including
in Europe, the post-Soviet space. We’ve tried to look into the issue
with Gershon Baskin, CEO and founder of the Israel/Palestine Center
for Research and Information (IPCRI).

Is my understanding correct that over those
years, over the past decade nationalistic feelings have become somewhat
stronger in Israel?

Gershon Baskin: Yes and no. It is
true that Israel is right wing today, but also 70 percent of the Israeli public
supports recognizing the Palestinian state, so it is quite complex.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Nationalism
usually stands in the way of rational and well-weighed decisions.

Gershon Baskin: We have a situation
in the Middle East today, where a nation’s honor is becoming more important
than sound rational, reasonable politics. Look at the relationship between
Turkey and Israel, that is an example – these are two nations who are willing
to sacrifice the good relations that existed between these two sides in the
name of honor or nationalism, and that is a pity. National honor is important,
everybody wants to be proud of their country, no one wants to be humiliated,
and international relations have to be carried out with a certain level of
mutual respect for each other, but what is also important in the international
relations is the interest of each party, and they always try to find mutual
interest, so that each side comes out as a winner.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: In
the third section of our program we are going to look at someone who has
challenged nationalists in one of the former Soviet republics – Latvia. Our Face
in the News this week gives us a rare chance to speak of the post-Soviet
space and a generation of new leaders, who are raised after the fall of the
iron curtain and the collapse of the world communist system. The face we are
going to talk about today is Nils Ushakov, a native Russian from Latvia, the
35-year old mayor of Riga and head of the “pro-Russian” Harmony Center
party, which came in first in the recent snap parliamentary election, achieving
a success never seen in the history of independent Latvia.

Sergei Strokan: Nils
Ushakov, as a person, as a political figure, remains an enigma. He is by no
means a puppet of Russia. But then he is surely not a classical nationalist
Latvian always ready to voice the regular clichés over what they call “Soviet
occupation.”

Ekaterina Kudashkina:
Latvia’s snap election came after years of looming economic crisis, dirty
politics and the dominance of oligarchs that resulted in the utter
dissatisfaction of man in the street and evoked an avalanche of feelings.

Sergei Strokan:I
spoke to a colleague of mine who came from Latvia the other day, and she says
that people there are desperate for better life, desperate for changes. And
they still didn’t lose hope that one day changes will come. There is more
public demand for leaders like Ushakov.

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Analysts
are debating how this win will alter the future of Latvia. And there is also
another point—this former Soviet Baltic republic, which gained independence two
decades ago to integrate into Euro-Atlantic structures, finds itself at another
crossroads, as it was shortly after the collapse of the Soviet empire.

Sergei Strokan:I
think it is quite appropriate to call it “crossroads” as the surprise win of
Nils Ushakov’s party was met with much enthusiasm by Latvia’s Russian-speaking
minority. However, still there are more questions than answers.

At the same time, it is quite clear that Latvia
is entering into a new phase of its post-communist development. The new phase
brings to life new political forces and new faces in politics, like Mr. Ushakov,
who first made headlines two years ago, when his Harmony Center party delivered
a crushing blow to Latvia’s ultra-right party “Civil Union” led by Geert Valdis
Kristovskis at the Riga municipal election of June 2009.

{***}

Ekaterina Kudashkina: The
defeat of leading nationalist party has paved the way for Nils Ushakov to
secure the crucial position of Riga’s mayor, adding him to the big names of
Latvian politics. And from the very start, he showed that he was not scared to
face ultra-nationalists and former Nazi collaborators, including Latvian Waffen
SS veterans who stage their noisy marches in Riga.

And people were quite receptive to the new policies.
That means that they are tired not only of the economic hardships, but also of
the nationalism, which is quite unnatural, I believe, and irrelevant, and it
doesn’t yield good results.

While drawing a line under the first stage of
Latvia’s independence, which passed under the noisy slogans of battling with
the ghosts of the Soviet past, Nils Ushakov and his party will have to look
into the future.

Sergei Strokan: They
have no option. They have to make Latvia “a home for all”. As in the Middle
East they have to make the region “a home for all”. For them in Latvia it will
be another uphill battle – battle for Latvia’s future, as it is the case with
the Middle East.